Ted Kulongoski, Fred Leonhardt, and the Goldschmidt scandal

The Oregonian editorialized on Sunday about Governor Ted Kulongoski and the latest developments in the sex-abuse scandal surrounding former Governor Neil Goldschmidt.

Whatever memory may be, it is mostly imperfect. And maybe that, more than anything else, explains the unproductive, unseemly and now apparently unending discussion of what Oregon's current governor might have known when about the sexual abuse of a teenage girl by our most infamous former governor.

You might not want to be the first one on your block to suggest this, though, because most everyone has moved on to Act 2 of this public melodrama. This is the part where it is presumed that someone must necessarily be lying. This is a satisfying presumption, in a certain self-righteous way, and it might even be true, or at least true-ish.

What about Fred Leonhardt, the former speechwriter who alleges that he told Kulongoski about it in 1994?

Here, too, is where we find Fred Leonhardt, an earnest, talented man possessed of the quality of believability. He has been saying since 2003 that he told his then-friend Ted Kulongoski, a minor functionary in state government and two-time loser of statewide elections, the story of Neil Goldschmidt's abuse of the teenager. ...

The main problem with Leonhardt's story is that Kulongoski denies hearing it back then. Categorically and vehemently. Leonhardt, disaffected and long-estranged from Goldschmidt's political circle, where he was once a speechwriter, had a ton of stories about Goldschmidt, says the current governor. This one was true, it turned out. But it's not a story Kulongoski remembers hearing anytime before it broke publicly in 2004.

Kulongoski is specific and consistent -- and, as of last week, oath-bound -- on this point. The stuff about Fred Leonhardt telling him about Goldschmidt and the girl? Didn't happen -- period, says Kulongoski. "I could have done what everyone expected [which was to say] I heard a rumor," Kulongoski told The Oregonian's editors in 2006. "But that isn't the truth. I would have remembered."

But is it possible that Kulongoski is lying?

To believe that Kulongoski, with years of political, legal and judicial experience, knew about these things is to believe he knowingly set aside the knowledge and appointed Goldschmidt to lead higher education, the central initiative of the new administration. It is also to believe that, when Goldschmidt quit, citing poor health -- when the jig was nearly up -- that Kulongoski fairly begged him to stay. Think what you may about Kulongoski, but there is simply no way to square such an accusation with any other aspect of his life and career.

Could we say for certain he did not know the story? Of course not. It is impossible to prove a negative.

That is very much the governor's problem, too. Kulongoski has been asked about these events over and over, and he has denied knowing the story. Is it fair to him to ask him again to prove the negative? Is it good for Oregon?

We don't think so.

Read the rest.


  • (Show?)

    Interesting how you edit the column. You quote that "he told his then-friend Ted Kulongoski, a minor functionary in state government and two-time loser of statewide elections, the story of Neil Goldschmidt's abuse of the teenager..."

    The next sentence, which you omitted, is: "He said he spoke to Kulongoski about this at a holiday party in 1994 and on several other occasions."

    Of course, in 1994, Ted was the Attorney General for the state of Oregon, hardly a "minor functionary in state government." He was also just two years away from winning a statewide race for attorney general, whereas his two losses in statewide races were 12 and 14 years earlier.

    At least the Oregonian is consistent: They never make a good point when a bad or inaccurate one is available.

  • (Show?)

    Jack you idiot. (But I repeat myself.) How many average Oregonians do you think even know the name of the current A.G.? 3%? 7%? You'd be lucky to get out of single digits. It's a pretty minor function to them.

    And even if they do decide it's a mischaracterization, issues of timing more than a decade ago is an easy mistake to make. Not any nefarious scheme to hide this right wing smear of the Governor.

  • Harry (unverified)

    "Not any nefarious scheme to hide this right wing smear of the Governor."


    I have heard Kari and others make the argument that TeddyK would never have behaved the way he did, if he had that knowledge from Fred in his brain.

    But I haven't heard the argument that Fred is part of (the central part, linchpin part) "the right wing smear of the Governor".

    Is this the best argument you have, Steven? If so, I think that Kari's arguments (and Jack's previous arguments rationalizing TeddyK's behavior) are more persuasive.

    Fred, the new right wing. Okay, that is not much of a reasonable argument!

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, Leonhardt doesn't strike me as a right-winger.

    But the rest of the argument - that Kulongoski wouldn't have appointed Goldschmidt to a key post if he knew anything about it - still holds.

    And Jack, sounds like the O flubbed the timing of Ted's positions. I didn't catch that. And no, I wouldn't call the Attorney General a "minor functionary". Good catch.

  • (Show?)

    As my previous posts here have made clear, I'm not in favor of beating this dead horse. But the Oregonian editorial was incredibly sloppy and poorly reasoned.

    I've already mentioned that Ted Kulongoski was not a "minor state functionary" at the time Fred Leonhardt allegedly told him the story.

    The editorial also claimed, “The state bar is considering two complaints that argue Kulongoski had some duty to report something to somebody about stories he may have heard about Goldschmidt’s past.”

    Actualy, the real basis of the complaints is that Ted Kulongoski, by publicly denying he had heard rumors of Goldschmidt’s offense before appointing him to the Board of Higher Education, violated Rule 8.4 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Misconduct, which states: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . (3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law . . . .”

    I'm not convinced this provision of the rules actually applies (or should apply) to statements made by public officials who just happen to be lawyers, but that is for OSB and ultimately the Oregon Supreme Court to decide.

    The editorial also claimed, “Leonhardt is said to have passed a polygraph, but such tests are impossible to evaluate without more information, and the courts, among others, regard them as unreliable.”

    It is simply not true that “the courts” regard polygraphs as unreliable. Most courts allow polygraph results to be used for various purposes and the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the admissibility of polygraphs as evidence is up to state courts to determine.

    And the dismissive statement that “Leonard is said to have passed a polygraph” is misleading, since the DPSST had Leonard take the polygraph to confirm the truthfulness of his sworn affidavit and stated in their draft report that he passed, quoting the polygraph examiner.

    I'm perfectly willing to be called an idiot by someone I don't know, but I also think the Oregonian should be ashamed of itself if that is the best case they can make in defense Kulongoski. As Harry says above, Kari made a far more persuasive case several days ago and he's supposed to be a partisan advocate.

  • (Show?)

    The Oregonian has been out for Bernie Giusto's blood for a couple of years now. I think this story is old news, but find it very interesting how the big O is bending over backwards to exonerate Gov. K. of the same thing they're obsessed with dragging down the Multnomah County sheriff over.

    Review what the big O said about Giusto, as quoted on BlueOregon and compare it side to side with what they're saying about Kulongoski. Talk about your moral equivalency...

  • LT (unverified)

    Jack, when you were an elected official, did you report every rumor you heard at a party to the "proper authorities"? If you had heard a rumor that people were compelled to "work off the clock" or were not getting lunch breaks, did you make it your first priority the next day at work to investigate that workplace? Could you prove otherwise if someone said "you heard that rumor at a party about---- mistreating employees and you did nothing about it", or could the Oregonian be right about the difficulty of proving a negative? I recall hearing some snide remarks about you and Family Leave. Could you tell us now what the Family Leave policy was in Oregon, Washington, and California when you were in office and now? Or is this just about scandal mongering?

    I have been meaning to email a thank you to the Oregonian editorial board.

    First of all, go into the parking lot of a major store or mall and stop people randomly. Ask them if they can name the current AG. If you get more than 1 in 10 people who give you the correct answer (not wrong answer, don't know, or "go away and quit bothering me!) I would be surprised.

    Secondly, in a gathering as non-political as the above parking lot scenario, how do you think people would react to a story framed this way?

    There was a crime involving an elected official in the 1970s which was kept secret. Recently someone claimed to have told famous people at a 1994 Christmas party a rumor about the crime. There has been considerable political chatter, press coverage, and some official complaints filed against the famous people. But there appears to be only one source--the guy who says he told the rumor to the famous people at the 1994 Christmas party. Now, in 2007, what do you think should be done, and how much attention should the media and politicians give to all this?

    Having been around a lot of non-political people in the past year (the sort who could not name the last 4 governors at the spur of the moment, much less the other statewide elected officials because there is too much else going on in their lives) here is the sort of reaction one might very likely get from people who don't toss around terms like "right wing" or any other political label in the course of their everyday lives.

    Some might ask questions, like whether the statute of limitations for the 1970s crime had expired by 1994. But I believe many would react like this:

    "Let me get this straight. Our lives are very complex. One friend is waiting for the results of a job interview and anticipating another interview in a week. Another is trying to get a better job and out of current sales job because their compensation is going to be cut at the first of the year. One friend is grateful to have gotten that call center job because the insurance there pays for her required medication and if she sticks with it for 2 years they will help her pay college tuition . Friends own a farm which might lose water supply if the nearby Measure 37 claims are built which is why they have been campaigning for Measure 49. One relative is pregnant, another's baby is about to turn a year old, another is awaiting surgery. AND YOU EXPECT ME TO CARE ABOUT A 1994 RUMOR AT A PARTY ABOUT A 1970s CRIME WHEN THERE ISN'T MORE THAN ONE WITNESS???

    Get Real Folks! Do you wonder why so many people are too busy with their own lives to pay attention to politics?

  • (Show?)

    LT, thanks for bringing up the fact that when I was labor commissioner I led the fight to pass the Oregon Family Leave Act which expanded family leave to 125,000 additional Oregon workers.

    But then, that wasn't really your point, was it?

    This isn't about expecting Ted Kulongoski to remember every rumor he heard or acting on it. On several previous posts on this site, I've defended Ted on that issue.

    The Oregonian wasn't satisfied with doing that, however. They felt they had to discredit Fred Leonhardt. Only they had no facts with which to do that, so they did it by snide misrepresentations and innuendo.

    Fred claims he told Ted when Kulongoski was Oregon's attorney general, so the Oregonian dismisses the attorney general as a "minor state functionary." Fred agrees to take a lie detector and passes it, so the Oregonian dismiss the reliability of a polygraph (and even imply they aren't really sure he took one, even though the BPSST says he did).

    Top this all off with the fact that Fred Leonhardt is a liberal Democrat, not a "right-winger" as so many of you seem to assume. But it apparently doesn't matter; if he represents a threat to your leader, he must be destroyed.

    Have you no sense of decency left?

  • (Show?)

    The only misrepresentations I've heard aren't in the newspapers, Jack. They're coming out of KXL, Lars Larson, and of course, you.

    For example, far from discrediting Fred Leonhardt, the Oregonian has gone out of its way to say that it's possible, or even likely, that Mr. Leonhardt thought he passed on a rumor at a party, but for whatever reason, it didn't register with Mr. Kulongoski. Nobody is lying, they say. Rather, they suggest that, mixed in with the party chatter and alcohol, there was a simple failure to communicate.

    Compare that lack of insinuation to yours: pretending that there is some grand conspiracy among the Oregonian's staff to overlook the fact that Mr. Kulongoski was A.G. at the time. Oh, and pretending that I was referring to Fred Leonhardt when I was talking about this right-wing smear.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)

    Someone earlier mentioned the connection between Kulongoski and Bernie Giusto in this Fred Leonhardt story.

    What's amazing is that The Oregonian ran at least two editorials calling for Giusto to resign over this DPSST investigation, which is built in large part on this very Leonhardt story.

    For the Big O, when Leonhardt is talking about Bernie, he is a credible witness who passed a polygraph. When talking about Kulongoski, then Leonhardt becomes an uncorroborated story-teller whose polygraph is unreliable.

    The problem? The Oregonian editorial board hasn't figured out that Leonhardt was talking about the same 1994 party when he claims Giusto told him juicy details about Goldschmidt's rape, which Leonhardt than relayed to Kulongoski.

    Just when it looked like Bernie was down for the count, The Oregonian just helped him off the canvas. How long before Bernie and his lawyer lieutenant (the same guy who ran against Jeff Merkley last year) seize on this editorial double standard regarding Fred Leonhardt?

    • Wes
  • LT (unverified)

    Jack, the reason I wrote that was that a memory popped into my head--didn't you and Mary Wendy Roberts used to debate the details of FMLA?

    People will make up their own minds about this whole story, but I tend to agree that Steven may be right,

    it's possible, or even likely, that Mr. Leonhardt thought he passed on a rumor at a party, but for whatever reason, it didn't register with Mr. Kulongoski. Nobody is lying, they say. Rather, they suggest that, mixed in with the party chatter and alcohol, there was a simple failure to communicate.

    What has bothered me about this whole thing (outside of the fact no one wants to talk about whether the statue of limitations had expired prior to the 1994 Christmas party) is the attitude of too many who travel in Portland political/media circles of YOU MUST BELIEVE FRED BECAUSE NO ONE CAN TRUST TED OR BERNIE!

    I don't know Fred and have never met Bernie. I once knew a legislator named Ted K. who ran for higher office in the 1980s. A family friend of ours was shot by a disgruntled former employee. Some of the more zealous pushers of this story want us to believe Leonhardt is not a disgruntled former employee, he is doing a public service and should be believed---look at the affadavit and the polygraph results! The phrase "doth protest too much" comes to mind.

    If a reputable organization like the Bar looks into the complaints and finds that, for instance, the statute of limitations had NOT run out in 1994 and someone at the party heard not only Fred telling Ted the rumor but Ted responding something like "That's quite a rumor---do you know it to be true? What evidence do you have?", that would be one thing.

    But until then, the people who want us to take this story seriously should realize it is not the top story on many people's minds. Also that those pushing the story were hurt by the press crush back when the story first broke because it was such a sensational scandal they had to ask Ted about it as he got into his car leaving a military funeral. A friend of mine who has served multiple tours overseas has also gone to multiple military funerals. I believe politics should be kept away from any funeral, esp. a military one.

    If saying that reporters with a clue could have waited until the Gov. left the funeral and asked him about this sensational story then just breaking about Neil G. at some other location is "not taking the issue of child rape seriously" (or some such rot) tough luck.

    What keeps coming into my mind is another story from the 1970s. Someone I knew was talking about a local public figure and said "you know, she isn't his first wife...". The more I thought about it (having spent more time talking with the wife better than the public figure himself) I spoke again to the woman who told me the rumor and asked, "So was his first marriage out of state or in Oregon? I seem to recall his wife talking about when they first moved here and didn't have much money, they had very simple furniture including those old plank and cement block book cases many of us had in college".

    The woman looked shocked and said "Gee,I'll have to check that out" and later said she'd talked to the source of the rumor, and that person told her the rumor was based on thin information and no one knew where/when the currently married couple had been married, or for how long, or if it really was a first marriage for both of them.

    It may be that a rumor was or wasn't told at a 1994 Christmas party. But that doesn't excuse the people who knew about Neil's crime in the 1970s. Why don't we hear about them--did Fred L. never meet them? Is that story less sensational because those people don't currently hold public office?

  • trishka (unverified)

    all i can say is that i would hate to be held accountable for anything anyone claims they said to me at a party over 10 years ago.

    good lord.

    this is beyond ridonkulous.

  • Wesley Charles (unverified)

    LT makes a good point. Most of the media focus on Goldschmidt's rape of that girl has been on those persons around Neil Goldschmidt when he was governor, even though the rape occurred when Goldschmidt was Portland's mayor.

    Bernie and Ted are easy targets now because they rose to top elective office in their respective political worlds. Conspicuously absent from the picture are the City of Portland employees and staffers who facilitated Neil's rape back in the 1970's.

    I suspect Mayor Goldschmidt's Portland Police driver is hunkered down somewhere while the media focuses on Governor Goldschmidt's OSP driver (who happened to be seeing Mrs. Governor on the side).

    So long as the spotlight is focused on Mahonia Hall and the Multnomah Building, there are some very relieved former (or current) City of Portland employees/staffers who are delighted nobody is bothering to look much farther back than 1989 - fifteen years after Goldschmidt raped the girl.

    • Wes
  • (Show?)

    LT, you're basically making the point that I have been making for some time: There were all sorts of rumors floating around about Goldschmidt at the time he left office and I don't blame Ted if he (1) doesn't remember all of them, or (2) didn't act on any of them without proof.

    I also think it is understandable that Fred Leonhardt would remember every conversation he had with Ted Kulongoski much better than Ted would remember any conversation he had with Fred Leonhardt.

    But I do know Fred Leonhardt, I think he is sincere, and I thought the Oregonian really dumped on him with their editorial Sunday--and that they didn't have to do it to make their point.

    By playing up the angle, not that Ted doesn't remember Fred telling him about the rumor, but that Ted affirmatively denies ever hearing the rumor ("I would have remembered"), they not only are saying they think Fred lied, but also suggesting that if anyone else comes forward and says they had conversations with Ted about this rumor before 2003, then that means Ted is the liar.

    I think this whole thing has gotten out of hand and I think the Oregonian, by playing fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to undermine Fred's credibility, have made things worse.

    But because I'm a Republican, people assume I must just be trying to pile on Ted--when that is the exact opposite of where I come down on this whole subject.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)

    I don't want to get involved in this little brouhaha, but those posters who say the Attorney General is a minor functionary must be only thinking of the current occupant of the office. Yeah, sure, the average schmo in a mall parking lot won't know his name. The same survey would find out that an egregiously small percentage of people know the name of the vice president, either of our senators, or their congressman.

    On the other hand, most New Yorkers (state, not city) knew the name of Eliot Spitzer long before he became governor. If we had a more dynamic...oh, well, that's another issue.

  • LT (unverified)

    Jack, don't go playing the victim. I have no clue whether Steve Duin and all the reporters who crowded around Gov. Ted after a military funeral when the story first broke are registered with a party or not. Maybe the belong to the Sensationalism party, like too many others in the press.

    You know Fred and think he is sincere. I never met him but have known Ted K. back to his days as a legislator. Does that mean I think you are piling on Ted? No, it means I have HAD IT UP TO HERE! with "Bernie and Ted should be ashamed of themselves because what Fred says should be trusted without question". I don't believe close friends of mine if they say something that doesn't ring true, but I should believe Fred L. because other people say I should??

    I thought the point of the Sunday Oregonian editorial was "come up with more evidence or quit trying to make the Gov. prove a negative". You may see a different message, but that is how I read it. An "enough already--go talk about something else" editorial.

    Recently I got into an argument when a friend mailed me something and got upset because the "main idea" I saw in a quote from a president in another century was not what he saw. Finally, after I emailed back "If I were asking students to find the main idea in that quote, I'd accept several different main ideas depending on how they read the paragraph-long quote, and here they are..." and he finally stopped arguing. Several people can read the same text and see several different messages!

    If Fred can come up with a second corroborating witness or something, that would be one thing. Same with an intelligent explanation of why Bernie and Ted having been at a 1994 Christmas party where reportedly Fred told them something absolves those in the 1970s who actually knew what Neil had done wrong. But I am tired of the press and others saying we should hold Gov. Ted to a higher standard.

    Unless those people want a single standard that any public figure should be held responsible for what they heard at a party about something that happened a couple decades earlier, I think the subject should be dropped.

    And just like I will take with a grain of salt the pundits who are pushing this story hard, it will take a lot for me to trust further statements by Fred L. about anything. If you see him, you can tell him that if he makes any statements on candidates or ballot measures next year, I won't believe what he says without a 2nd source.

    Just as I wouldn't believe many state legislators if they said something that didn't ring true and didn't have a second source.

  • (Show?)

    Well,so far pretty much everything Fred has said that can be corroborated has been corroborated. Although Giusto initially denied just about all of it (including knowing Leonhardt at all), the BPSST draft report pretty much supported all of Fred's allegations--except the one about his conversations with Ted, which no third party has been able to confirm or refute.

    And Fred agreed to take a lie detector test, did take a lie detector test, and passed the lie detector test.

    Like it or not, there is more to this than the fact that Fred's friends believe him. And to a great extent, Ted has escalated this dispute by not being willing to say, "I know Fred is convinced we had this conversation but I just don't remember it."

    No, Ted insists the conversation never took place and says "I would have remembered." So the issue has squarely been joined: either Fred is lying or Ted is lying.

    It didn't have to come to this, but it has. And it's Ted's supporters who are saying, "Can't we just call this off?"

  • Ron Buel (unverified)

    I am less concerned about Fred Leonhardt's truthfulness than Jack Roberts is. Leonhardt says his source was Bernie Giusto. Since Bernie was apparently then "dating" Margie Goldschmidt as all reports would have it, doesn't Leonhardt, telling Ted, have this at best fourth hand (Neil to Margie to Bernie to Fred). And isn't Bernie in the middle of that chain, and doesn't Bernie have a reason to spread stuff about his then ex-boss since he is dating his ex-wife, and if Fred either told Ted Bernie was his source, or said he had it fourth hand, shouldn't Ted have dismissed it anyway at that time, or forgotten it as he says he did? This crime, as bad as it was, was then 15 to 20 years old. I think The Oregonian is familiar with the implications of an information chain like this, even moreso than the estimable Jack Roberts. I don't care how many lie detector tests Fred has taken. "How did he know what he knew" is the reporter's natural question in this case. Not that The Oregonian reporters on the big investigative story about Giusto paid any attention to this question.
    There is also the issue of what Leonhardt did at the time with his supposed "knowledge" from a law officer. Did he put in writing his concerns to Attorney General Kulongoski, law officer Giusto or even Goldschmidt, asking them to act? Did he insist on action verbally? Did he get involved in any way on behalf of the then-young-woman who was reportedly then seeking compensation from Goldschmidt that she reportedly received? Did Fred go to the press then? What exactly, Mr. Roberts, do YOU see as Mr. Leonhardt's obligations at the time? I think he had them. Why didn't HE act on them?
    Yes, I think we can ask similar questions about a lot of people over a 30-year period (1975 to 2004), as LT suggests, and I do hate to agree with him. I saw pictures of two sources in The Oregonian's big, salacious article on Giusto that could be asked about what they knew, and when and how, and what they did about it. Certainly, many of us who were around in the 1970s (I worked for Goldschmidt from 1969-1973; the criminal acts reportedly occurred beginning in 1975) COULD have known something during the statute of limitations, but there was A LOT of asking about this and reporting on this when the story broke in 2004, a lot of it inaccurate and unfair and poorly reported, in my opinion. I personally received three phone calls from different Oregonian reporters the day after the story broke, all asking these questions of me. At some point, even fine journalists like Phil Stanford have a responsbility to use their public forum to do something other than rehash old stuff because its salacious or sexy or suits their political perspective or makes them right, or feeds a book they are writing and hope to publish.

    I think there is also a legitimate question here of pack journalism around people like Diane Linn and Bernie Giusto who become such targets, whatever you think of their deserving being designated as "fair game". The Oregonian, Willamette Week and the Portland Tribune all weigh in on such people in much the same way, and often without much thought or adequate reporting. They take their sources at their word in such situations, feeling they are free to pile on without assessing their sources' motives or actual involvement. I thought Kari's piece in Blue Oregon, and then The Oregonian editorial, were fine examples of someone stepping back (as the press should) and saying "wait a minute" on Leonhardt's renewed charges regarding Kulongoski's supposed knowledge, a story that had been previously reported and denied on the front page of The Oregonian.

  • LT (unverified)

    Thank you Ron Buel for the comments about 4th hand knowledge and of obligations to report what might be a crime.

    There is also the issue of what Leonhardt did at the time with his supposed "knowledge" from a law officer. Did he put in writing his concerns to Attorney General Kulongoski, law officer Giusto or even Goldschmidt, asking them to act? Did he insist on action verbally? Did he get involved in any way on behalf of the then-young-woman who was reportedly then seeking compensation from Goldschmidt that she reportedly received? Did Fred go to the press then? What exactly, Mr. Roberts, do YOU see as Mr. Leonhardt's obligations at the time? I think he had them. Why didn't HE act on them?

    Why was passing along information at a party supposed to be enough? That sounds more like politics than like concern about a crime.

    Certain professions have abuse reporting standards, but politics and journalism don't seem to be in that category.

    Teachers are in that category and can get in trouble for failure to report.


    Teachers have obligation to report abuse

    2 instructors reprimanded for failure to do so

    November 8, 2007

    Two former Mid-Valley teachers -- one who worked in Salem-Keizer, one in McMinnville -- have been reprimanded by state authorities for something they didn't do.

    The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission said the teachers failed to report suspected child abuse, as they are required to do by law.

    Tough? Yes. Appropriate? You bet.

    Years ago, this failure might not have raised an eyebrow. It wouldn't have resulted in a discipline order against the former special-education teacher at Parrish Middle School in Salem and the retired social-studies teacher who coached football at McMinnville High School.

    But Oregonians have seen what one child abuser can do in the case of Joe Billera, the well-liked Salem-Keizer band teacher who pleaded guilty to manipulating four students into having sex with him.

    << For those not aware of the Billera case, parents had been complaining to the district management but not much seemed to be done about it until St. Sen. Vicki Walker started investigating. Over time, the fallout from that case resulted in a new Supt., new HR director, and a mostly new school board. All within less than a decade.

    Sorry, Jack, but as much as you want to make this political, And it's Ted's supporters who are saying, "Can't we just call this off?" your implication that all good Oregonians want to keep this story alive unless they are "Ted supporters" is not convincing.

    I am someone who has been offended by some of what the current Governor has done and voted against him in the 2006 primary. But if you think I was going to vote for Saxton in this lifetime, I would caution you to remember the signoff line Saxton used in his TV commentary, "Think about it".

    I was a Tom McCall Republican, and no amount of name calling will make me support Republicans who are angry at Kulongoski simply because they aren't Kulongoski. My grandfather was a Republican prosecutor and AG in a Midwestern state. My guess is that his take on this story would have been "telling a rumor at a party but never contacting law enforcement to make a report?"

in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon